---

Something wrong with a background check, or do you want your lunatic neighbor's son who just got out of the state mental institution to be able to walk into the sporting goods store and buy an uzi?  I got all of my guns under Romney.  Why would he hurt you?  Just curious....why does anyone need an assault weapon?

---

Romney in 2008

---

I had to pass a background check for my carry permit, I can live with that. 

Strongly Support An Individual’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment. Governor Romney believes in safe and responsible gun ownership. He recognizes there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and he thinks they're wrong. We need to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns.

Support More Severe Punishments For Those Who Commit Crimes With A Firearm. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.

Governor Romney does not believe we need any more gun laws in this country. Like President Bush, he would sign a gun law if it was carefully written to target weapons of unusual and unnecessary lethality or power.

Support Court Decisions That Strengthen The Second Amendment. The Governor applauds court decisions finding the Second Amendment protects an individualized right to keep and bear arms. As President he would support that interpretation and protect the right of every law abiding adult to keep and use firearms.

---

(CM) theSuperPatriot said:

I had to pass a background check for my carry permit, I can live with that. 

Strongly Support An Individual’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment. Governor Romney believes in safe and responsible gun ownership. He recognizes there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and he thinks they're wrong. We need to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns.

Support More Severe Punishments For Those Who Commit Crimes With A Firearm. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.

Governor Romney does not believe we need any more gun laws in this country. Like President Bush, he would sign a gun law if it was carefully written to target weapons of unusual and unnecessary lethality or power.

Support Court Decisions That Strengthen The Second Amendment. The Governor applauds court decisions finding the Second Amendment protects an individualized right to keep and bear arms. As President he would support that interpretation and protect the right of every law abiding adult to keep and use firearms.

 

I like what you say here SP. Right on.  They way I look at it is the criminals and gansters are gonna get their AK 47's and Uzzies with or without more and more restrictive laws that only law abiding poeple like us will adhere to. I even disagree with a ban on assault weapons. Why should I be forced to own a pea shooter in my home when the martial law cops and thugs have canons?

---

Well said John.  Still undecided though, I am.

---

Patsy said: Something wrong with a background check, or do you want your lunatic neighbor's son who just got out of the state mental institution to be able to walk into the sporting goods store and buy an uzi?  I got all of my guns under Romney.  Why would he hurt you?  Just curious....why does anyone need an assault weapon?

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting, and it's certainly not limited to specific, ancient firearms. It protects a principle. A principle that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have the innate right to defend themselves from those who would do them harm, which could include a future tyrannical government. Our nation's founders were a lot more concerned with that than they were with protecting deer season."

Thats why we own assault weapons an for Recreation of course....

Im one of those cold dead finger guys ;)...

---

Randynaz said:

Patsy said: Something wrong with a background check, or do you want your lunatic neighbor's son who just got out of the state mental institution to be able to walk into the sporting goods store and buy an uzi? I got all of my guns under Romney. Why would he hurt you? Just curious....why does anyone need an assault weapon?

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting, and it's certainly not limited to specific, ancient firearms. It protects a principle. A principle that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have the innate right to defend themselves from those who would do them harm, which could include a future tyrannical government. Our nation's founders were a lot more concerned with that than they were with protecting deer season."

Thats why we own assault weapons an for Recreation of course....

Im one of those cold dead finger guys ;)...

 

 

 

 

Twisted Handgun Statue At United Nations Plaza, New York City

We testosterone boys love our toys, the bigger the better.

Let's drop the word 'assault weapons' okay? There's a deeper issue here.

A .22 revolver pistol can be an assualt weapon as well an assault kitchen kinfe, an assault gas can or assault propane bbq tank with a few intructions from our assault computers with access to any bomb making instructions.

Ahhh yes take it all away, our assault axes, our assault military dress swords, assault chainsaws and while your at it loving Police State on the rise, take my Granny's big ole assault sewing needles because we sure don't want Johnny who just got out of the state mental institution to get his hands on them as he gets his assault TV induced ADHD cues from assault Hollywood and assault cartoons on how to stab little sister in the brain thru the eye or is shown how to blow someones brains out with a gun 50 times oer day, especially when he is one of the 3/4 of foster children in Amercia intentionally put on a concoction of 7 different assault psychotrophic drugs everyday by the government and their pharmamcutical big boys buddies who like their big expensive toys too.

'Assault weapons' are not the problem folks. Leading by example and education at home and in public is the answer and the 'silly ole' Bible that the president sticks his hand on needs to be put back in our schools along with prayer in Jesus name. We are only reaping what we sow. We push Him (God-Jesus) out of our personal and public lives then darkness rushs in like a flood and then we get the 'Colombines.'.....arrrgh...watch ENDGAME, all of it, 2.3 hours worth. ENDGAME comes in 14 segments/video clips. Get all the issues straight, -not just this one in this thread- and put into crystal clear perspective. Go to: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&hl=en

or I am willing to send anyone a free DVD copy.

---

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting, and it's certainly not limited to specific, ancient firearms. It protects a principle. A principle that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have the innate right to defend themselves from those who would do them harm, which could include a future tyrannical government. Our nation's founders were a lot more concerned with that than they were with protecting deer season."

I didn't say anything about hunting, Randy.  Just asking a question, that's all.  Who or what are you expecting to attack you that you'd need an uzi to defend yourself?  Our founding fathers wouldn't have known an uzi if you capped them between the running lights with one.  And now you're limiting it to "law abiding citizens?"  Then why are you against background checks?  Who's going to determine who's "law abiding?"

---

Patsy said:

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting, and it's certainly not limited to specific, ancient firearms. It protects a principle. A principle that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have the innate right to defend themselves from those who would do them harm, which could include a future tyrannical government. Our nation's founders were a lot more concerned with that than they were with protecting deer season."

I didn't say anything about hunting, Randy.  Just asking a question, that's all.  Who or what are you expecting to attack you that you'd need an uzi to defend yourself?  Our founding fathers wouldn't have known an uzi if you capped them between the running lights with one.  And now you're limiting it to "law abiding citizens?"  Then why are you against background checks?  Who's going to determine who's "law abiding?"

 

Like SP said . I can live with a backgroud check.  The gun statue outide the UN in New York stats says it all, where they want to go with this and much further.

---

The UN can kiss my red, white and blue butt!  I suppose in some circles that statue is "art that makes a statement."  I could make a much more direct statement to them with just one finger.

---

Patsy said:

The UN can kiss my red, white and blue butt!  I suppose in some circles that statue is "art that makes a statement."  I could make a much more direct statement to them with just one finger.

 

Really Patsy, do you hate the UN??!  I'm surprised. Why?

---

Why?  Because they are all a bunch liberal, America hating a$$holes, that's why.

---

Patsy said:

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting, and it's certainly not limited to specific, ancient firearms. It protects a principle. A principle that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have the innate right to defend themselves from those who would do them harm, which could include a future tyrannical government. Our nation's founders were a lot more concerned with that than they were with protecting deer season."

I didn't say anything about hunting, Randy.  Just asking a question, that's all.  Who or what are you expecting to attack you that you'd need an uzi to defend yourself?  Our founding fathers wouldn't have known an uzi if you capped them between the running lights with one.  And now you're limiting it to "law abiding citizens?"  Then why are you against background checks?  Who's going to determine who's "law abiding?"

I never said i was against backround checks, as long as the instant which they are now... Your last question is a good one an i dont have an answer... But The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be... An i dont think that be possible with your standard hunting rifle....

---

I hate the UN because it is and always been a Communist tool, a corrupt and ineffective Communist tool to which we should never get money and withdraw our membership.  I hope you were being rhetorical John cause it's a big part of the Ron Paul conspiracy plot.

Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN.  Make the building a H bomb testing facility.

---

 never said i was against backround checks, as long as the instant which they are now... Your last question is a good one an i dont have an answer... But The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be... An i dont think that be possible with your standard hunting rifle....

Well, here's a news flash.  Your uzi won't be very effective against tanks and grenades and nukes and landmines or chemical weapons either.  On the other hand, hubby has always wished for a tank so he could just drive over 99% of the "mass-a$$es" on the highway into Boston.  Would the 2nd amendment cover tanks for private citizens?  Is there a future for an Abrams showroom next to Chevy?

---

Patsy said:

 never said i was against backround checks, as long as the instant which they are now... Your last question is a good one an i dont have an answer... But The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be... An i dont think that be possible with your standard hunting rifle....

Well, here's a news flash.  Your uzi won't be very effective against tanks and grenades and nukes and landmines or chemical weapons either.  On the other hand, hubby has always wished for a tank so he could just drive over 99% of the "mass-a$$es" on the highway into Boston.  Would the 2nd amendment cover tanks for private citizens?  Is there a future for an Abrams showroom next to Chevy?

 

Youd be suprised, im not geting into specifics on here though.

---

(CM) theSuperPatriot said:

I hate the UN because it is and always been a Communist tool, a corrupt and ineffective Communist tool to which we should never get money and withdraw our membership. I hope you were being rhetorical John cause it's a big part of the Ron Paul conspiracy plot.

Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN. Make the building a H bomb testing facility.

 

Yes I agree with you SP on the UN. I asked Patsy because I was surprised by her statement andjust wanted to here here reasons.

One would want more than one's middle finger to point at the UN, especially when one understands that WW11 was instigated all for the very reason to have the world beg for the creation of the United Nation whose same founders instigated WW1 & WW11 while funding all sides of the wars. The League of nations didn't fly after WW1 hence WW11... then we are cryed: "Yes give us the UN to protect us from these horrible wars."

The deeper issue I mentioned in the post above is a more critical matter in my opinion.

---

Youd be suprised, im not geting into specifics on here though.

Uh huh.....just tell me if I can go down the street and buy a tank.  I'd love to get hubby one for his birthday.  No rush answering....his birthday isn't until July.

---

Patsy said:

Youd be suprised, im not geting into specifics on here though.

Uh huh.....just tell me if I can go down the street and buy a tank.  I'd love to get hubby one for his birthday.  No rush answering....his birthday isn't until July.

 

Im pretty shure this wasnt a serious question but I really dont think theres a law against it.... I used to go to the army base where my uncle worked an theyd have shows with old tanks from ww11 an other wars an the where all still funtional an most where privatly owned by collectors..

---